E 




. H 6" H ' 



\Sa 



I 



1?k. 



CHARACTER AND PUBLIC CAREER 

OF 

PATRICK HEKRY. 



COMMENTS UPON MR. JEFFERSON'S LETTER. 



//in//, " V ^ '■'■ (*•• /A^-r^*-- '■' 

t^i LAA., .V- ■ - Charlotte Gouuthouse, Va., November 22, 1867. 

w 

To the Edilw of the Richmond Dispatch : 

Dear Sir, — Some daj^s after its appearance, my attention was called to an article 
in your paper of the 25th July last, copied from the Philadelphia AffC, which pur- 
ported to be a manuscript of Thomas Jefferson containing reminiscences of Patrick 
Henry. 

The article contained many statements derogatory to the reputation of Mr. Henry, 
in whose vindication I feel it my duty to publish this reply. Although the manu- 
script contains many misstatements of fact, it is doubtless from the pen of Mr. 
Jefferson, and is evidently the communication furnished Mr. AVirt while he was 
preparing the life of Henry— as I notice that author, when referring to Mr. Jefferson 
as authority, quotes in many instances the very words of the article you published, 
and in other portions of his work seems to be combatting the charges therein made 
by Mr. Jefferson. Taking the m:.umscript, then, to be genuine, I can only account 
for its existence by remembering that it was penned at a period of Mr. Jefferson's 
life, when the heat engendered by party strife had fixed in his mind distorted views 
of his political opponents. 

The statement that Mr. Henry first came into public notice as a burgess about the 
year 1762 is incorrect. He was elected for the first time in May, 1765, and during 
that month made the attack spoken of 4ipon the proposition for a public loan office. 
(Wirt's Sketches of Henry, p. 61, et seq.) During the same month the fiimous reso- 
lutions against the Stamp Act were offered by Mr. Henry and passed by the House. 
Mr. Jefferson states that these resolutions were drawn by George Johnston, a lawyer 
from the Northern Neck, who seconded them. In reply to this, I need only refer to 
the statement of Mr. Wirt, (p. 74,) that Mr. Henry left amongst his private papers, in 
his own handwriting, a copy of those resolutions, with an endorsement stating the 
circumstances under which they were offered, in which endorsement he says: " That 
alone, unadvised and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law book, I wrote the 
w! bin." This paper was found sealed up and directed to his executors, and comes 
tc us as his dying declaration. It is still in existence at Red Hill. 

Mr. Jefferson was at the time a student at William and Mary, and heard the 
d.ijbale; but bis statement as to who wrote the resolutions cannot be weighed a 



moment against the solemn declaration of Mr. Henry. Xor can I credit Mr. Jeffer. 
■n-hen he says that Mr. Henry was a very inefficient member of deliberative bodies 
ordinary business, and had not accaracy enough of idea in his head to draw a bill 
on the most simple subject which would bear legal criticism. He was very fre- 
quently placed upon important committees. One of these was the standing com- 
mit tee of Correspondence between the Colonies, appointed by the Virginia House of 
Burgesses the 12th of March, 1773, which was selected from the best material in the 
Coluny, and which led eventually to a Colonial Congress. We have also the testi- 
niDuy of a very able contemporary as to this matter. George Mason, in a letter to 
Mr. Cockburn, dated Williamsburg, 26th May, 1774, (Virginia Historical Register, 
January, 18J0. p. 28,) writes: "Whatever resolves and measures are intended for the 
pri'serviuion of our rights and liberties, M'ill be reserved for the couclusioa of the 
session. Matters of this sort here are conducted and prepared with a great deal of 
privacy, and by very few memberS; of whom Patrick Henry is the principal. * * * 
He is by far the most powerful speaker I ever heard. Every word he says not only 
engages, but comrannds the attention, and your passions arc no longer your own 
when he addresses them. But his eloquence is the smallest part of his merit. He 
is, in my opinion, the first man upon this continent, as well in abilities as public 
virtues; and had he lived in Rome about the time of the first Punic war, when the 
Roman people had arrived at their meridian glory, and their virtue not tarnished, 
Mr. Henry's talents must have put him at the head of that glorious commonwealth." 

Mr. Jefferson informs us that after his service as Governor, succeeding Mr. Henry, 
he had no further personal knowledge of him. And yet his most serious charges .is 
to personal conduct refer to subsequent periods. It will be remembered also that 
Mr. Jefferson never met with him until Mr. Henry was twenty-four years of age. 

Tliat Mr. Henry commenced life in very straitened circumstances, is without doubt; 
but that he ever acted as a bar-keeper, is denied by Mr. Wirt, (p. 37,) who obtained 
his information from the companions of Mr. Henry's youth. 

I am entirely satisfied, also, that Mr. Jefferson has misrepresented Mr. Henry's 
attainments and conduct as a lawyer. He rei)resents him as too lazy to acquire or 
practice law, never undertaking to draw pleadings if he could avoid it, engaging 
verj' unwillingly, but as an assistant, to speak in the cause, making the fee an 
indispensable preliminary, keeping no accounts, requiring large fees for his services, 
insatiable in money, and doing so little business in the general court, other than 
criminal, that it would not pay the expenses of his attendance. I have in my 
possession Mr. Henry's fee books, commencing in the latter part of 17G0, when he 
first came to the bar, and coming down to 1771, more than one year after he came 
to the genera] court. Sixteen pages of these books have been cut out and lost; but 
estimating that the fees charged' upon them average in numbers with those upon the 
remaining pages, and I find that Mr. Henry charges fees in 1185 suits, from Septem- 
ber, 1760, the commencement of his practice, to the 31st December, 1763, besides 
many fees for preparing papers out of court. In November, 1763, he was employed 
in, and in December following he argued, the celebrated parsons' cause which gave 
him so great a rejjutation. Afterwards his business increased rapidly; of which, 
however, only a small portion was criminal, the great bulk being the ordinary suits 
of the country, plain actions of debt, etc. In these it is preposterous to su])pose he 
appeared only as an assistant, to speak. So far from his being insatiable, his books 
show the usual moderate charges of the day, such as have been long since discarded 
by the profession; and many of his fees appear never to have been collected. 






Randall, in his Life of Jefferson, (vol. 1, p. 47,) gives the number of causes in Trhich 
le (Jefferson) was employed in the earlier years of his practice, as evidence of his 
rreat success; but judging Mr. Henry by the same rule, his success was much 
greater before he had made M-hat is usually represented as his first speech. How he 
acquired or retained a practice so large, and contiuunlly increasing, so perfectly unfit 
for it as Mr. Jefferson represents him, I am at a loss to understand. 

Nor can I reconcile with Mr. Jefferson's statement another fact, mentioned by Mr. 
Wirt and by Mr. Randall: I mean the public advertisement of Robert C. Nicholas, attcr 
he was made treasurer, committing his unfinished business to Mr. Henry. Mr. 
Nicholas was one of the examiners who signed Mr. Henry's license, and enjoyed the 
first practice at the bar, according to Mr. Wirt; and Mr. Randall thinks (vol. 1, p. 40, 
Life of Jefferson,) that he committed his practice to Mr. Henry upon the advice of 
Mr. Jefferson. 

The insinuation that Mr. Henry paid for the Leatherwood lands purchased of Mr. 
Lomax in a discreditable manner — discreditable, as is alleged, because of the depre- 
ciated money used in payment — is entirely unjust. The interest of Mr. Lomax vras 
a subject of litigation, and the sworn answer of Mr. Henry in the case is before me, 
together with the answer of his widow in a suit brought to divide Mr. Henry's estate 
after his death. By these papers it appears that the purchase was made in 1778 for 
paper money, and that Mr. Henry sold other lands of equal value in order to pay the 
purchase money. At the time of the purchase, paper money had depreciated so as 
to be worth only one-fifth of specie, and that it would further depreciate must have 
been apparent to all. I find two receipts given by Mr. Lomax, one for five half 
Johannes at 46s., each, dated 30th May, 177S; and the other for £500, cash, dated 
October, 1778, showing that a large portion of the purchase money was paid during 
the year of the purchase, and at times when the depreciation of the currency had 
increased but little. What were the dates of the deferred payments I have not 
ascertained; but whatever they may have been, no stigma can attach to .Mr. Henry 
for paying lor land in the very currency he had contracted to pay, and which he was 
receiving for lands sold by him to meet the purchase. 

Mr. Jefferson has endeavored to connect the name of Mr. Henry with the infamous 
Yazoo speculation. He asserts that about the close of the war Mr. Henry engaged 
in this speculation, and bought up a great deal of depreciated paper at 2s. and 2s. 6d. 
in the pound to pay for it; that the Georgia Legislature having declared that trans- 
action fraudulent and void, the depreciated paper which he had bought up was 
likely to remain on his hands worth nothing, but that Hamilton's funding system 
came most opportunely to his relief, and raised his paper from 2s. 6d. to 27s. 6d. the 
pound. The facts are simply as follows: 

On the 7th February, 1795, the Georgia Legislature passed an act selling to four 
companies, viz : the Georgia, the Georgia and Mississippi, the Upper Mississippi, and 
the Tennessee— about forty million acres of land for the sum of $500,000. These 
companies paid the money and obtained deeds to the land. It soon became known, 
however, that the Legislature had been bribed, and the succeeding Legislature, on 
the 30th January, 1796, declared the grant fraudulent and void, ((garland's Randolph, 
vol. 1, p. 66; and Tucker's History of the United States, voi. 2, p. 1S7.) Tiiis trans- 
action became infamous, and was known as the Yazoo speculation; and it is with 
this that Mr. Jefferson evidently intends to connect Mr. Henry. 

I find from Mr. Henry's private papers that late in the year 1789, he, wiili Judge 
Paul Carrington, Joel AVatkins, Francis Watkins, and some half dozen other frenlle- 



naeu — all of high character — entered into a co-partnership, which they called the 
Virginia Yazoo Company, having for their object the purchase of Georgia lands. I;] 
1789 the Georgia Legislature passed an act to sell to the South Carolina, the Virgin' , 
Yazoo, and the Tennessee Companies, a portion of her territory. But refusing to ' 
take Georgia certificates in payment, and requiring specie instead, the companies 
could not pay for the land, and their rights were afterwards declared forfeited. 
(Tucker's History of the United States, vol. 2, p. 187.) No improper conduct can 
be charged on the Virginia Yazoo Company in this transaction. They paid uo money, 
and got no land. 

I find from a letter from Francis 'V\'atkins, the secretary and treasurer of the 
company, addressed to Mr. Henry, March 7, 1795, that Mr. Scott, the agent of the 
company in attendance on the Georgia Legislattirc, had failed to obtain a new grant, 
while other companies had obtained the lands. Mr. Watkins advised a dissolution 
of the company forthwith. I have never seen the slightest evidence that Mr. Henry 
was connected with any other company-, nor am I aware that this was ever charged. 
In further e.\-cul])ation of the Virginia company I would add, that John Randolph, in 
the United States Congress, in 1805, assailed with great bitterness the Yazoo specu- 
lation and the persons connected with it; yet in 1820, upon the death of Colonel 
Joel Waikins. one of the Virginia company, Mr. Randolph, long his iniimate friend, 
in writing his obituary, saj's : "Under the guidance of old-fashioned honesty and 
practical good sense he accumulated an ample fortune,. in which it is firmly believed 
by all who knew him there was not a dirty shilling." 

The only paper which the act of Georgia declaring fraudulent and void the Yazoo 
speculation could have affected, was the certificates of debt of the State of Georgia 
held by the companies interested for the purpose of meeting their purchase. And 
when Mr. Jefferson wrote, he had evidently in his mind that portion of the system 
urged by Hamilton, whereby the United States assumed the debts of the several 
States. Georgia among the rest. 

The i'unding and assumption act was approved on the 4th of August, 1790, (Laws 
of the United States, vol. 1, p. 162,) and gave a considerable value immediately to 
the paper affected by it. (Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. 1, p. 606.) Now, it could 
not have been possible, as stated by Mr. Jefferson, that the act of Georgia, Mhich 
passed in 1796, depreciated the paper held by Mr. Henry to 2s. 6d., when the system 
of Hamilton had been in operation for six years, and had given a greater value to 
that paper from its commencement ; nor could the act of Congress of 1790 have come 
most opportunely to Mr. Henry's relief in 1796, and raised bis paper depreciated by 
the act of Georgia of that year. The desire to impute a discreditable motive to Mr. 
Henry has evidently resulted in confounding dates ; and the act of Georgia in 1796 is 
put prior to Hamilton's funding system of 1790. 

Mr. Jefferson proceeds to state that Mr. Henry continued hostile to the Federal 
Constitution after its adoption, and expressed more than any other man bis thorough 
contempt and hatred of General Washington ; and that from being the most violent 
of all anti-Federalists, he was brought over to the new Constitution by the effect of 
Hamilton's funding system on the depreciated paper he owned ; that Hamilton 
became now his idol ; and, abandoning the Republican advocates of the Constitution, 
the Federal Government on Federal principles became his creed. 

I have a number of letters written by Mr. Henry after the adoption of the Consti- 
tution, among them letters to Richard Henry Lee while a member of the (irst United 
States Senate from . Virginia, with whom he was on the most intimate terms', and 



)se election he had secured over Mr. Madison as the opposing candidate. I find 
' fvontempt, hatred, or even unkind feeling, expressed anywhere towards General 
Washington. Mr. Henry's conduct towards General Washington during his whole 
..fe/is at variance with the statement; and I cajiHOt believe it, resting upon the evi- 
dence of but a single witness, who informs us he had no personal knowledge of Mr. 
Henry at the time. On the contrary, I find that Chief Justice Marshall, who had 
opportunities of seeing Mr. Henry during this period, states (in note xviii. to vol. 5, 
Life of Washington,) that Mr. Henry was truly the personal friend of General Wash- 
ington. To the same effect is the testimony of Mr. A. Blair, secretary of the Council 
of Virginia. (Sparks's Writings of Washington, vol. 11, Appendix xviii.) He writes 
to General Washington June 19, 1799: "I had the honor to qualify for my present 
office when Mr. Henry commenced the administration of our Revolutionary Govern- 
ment. From that period to the day of his death I have been on the most intimate, 
and I believe friendly, terms with him. * * * With regard to you, sir, I may say, as 
he said of Marshall, that he loved you, and for the same reason, because you felt and 
acted as a Republican — as an American." 

Mr. Henry's independence of character was too great to permit him ever to make 
an idol of Hamilton or of any other man. If he could have been induced to idolize 
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jefferson's reminiscences doubtless would have assumed a different 
hue. So far from permitting the financial system of Hamilton to change his politics, 
one of the last acts of Mr. Henry's public life was a protest against the very feature 
of that system which, if Mr. Jefferson is to be believed, put money into Mr. Henry's 
pocket and made him a political apostate. 

In the Virginia Assembly of 1790, the last in which Mr. Henry sat, on the 3d No- 
vember, the following resolution was adopted by the House of Delegates: 

" Resolved, That so much of the act of Congress entitled an act making provision 
for the debt of the. United States as assumes the payment of the State debts is 
rei)Ugnant to the Constitution of the United States, as it goes to the exercise of a 
power not expressly granted to the General Government." 

On the vote adopting this resolution, Mr. Henry's name is with the ayes. (Vide 
Journal of the House of Delegates for 1790, pp. 35 and 36.) 

That Mr. Henry opposed the adoption of the Constitution in its unamended form is 
true ; but that he continued hostile to it afterwards is not true, if he himself is to be 
believed. Amongst his papers there is a copy, in his own hand, of his reply to 
General Washington when offered the position of Secretary of State. It is dated 
October 17, 1795 ; and after giving his reasons for declining the appointment, which 
are of a private nature, it continues : 

"Believe me, sir. I have bid adieu to the. distinction of Federal and anti-Federal 
ever since the commencement of the present Government, and in the circle of my 
friends have often expressed my fears of disunion amongst the States from collision' 
of interest, but especially from the baneful effects of faction. 

"The most I can say is, that if my country is destined in my day to encounter the 
horrors of anarchy, every power of mind and body which I possess will be exerted 
in support of the government under which I live, and which has been fairly sanctioned 
by ray countrymen. 

" I should be unworthy the character of a Republican or an honest man if I with- 
held from the Government my best and most zealous efforts because on its adoption 
I opposed it in its unamended form. And I do most cordially execrate the conduct 



6 ( 

of those men who lose sight of the public interest from personal motives. It is'V 
painful regret that I perceive any occurrences of late have given you uneas'i'ness. 
Indeed, sir, I did hope and pray that it might be your lot to feel as small a portion 
of that as the most favored condition of humanity can experience. And if it even- 
tually comes to pass that evil, instead of good, comes out of the public measures 
you may adopt, I confide that our country will not so far depart from her character 
as to judge from the events, but give full credit to the motives and decide from 
these alone. Forgive, sir, these effusions, and permit me to add to them one more, 
which is an ardent wish that the best rewards which are due to a well-spent life may 
be yours. 

" With sentiments of the most sincere esteem and high regard, 1 ever am, dear sir, 
your much obliged and very humble servant, P. Henuy." 

(See also letter of P. Henry to General Henry Lee. Sparks's Writings of Wash- 
ington, vol. 10, Appendix xxiii.) 

These letters show that Mr. Henry had in good faith earned out the purpose 
expressed in the last speech he made against the Constitution in the Convention of 
1788. He then declared that he would live under it a peaceable citizen, and that 
he would endeavor to remove its defects in a constitutional way, alluding to the 
amendments afterwards proposed. (Robertson's Virginia Debates, p. 465.) Though 
opposed to Jay's Treaty and the Alien and Sedition Laws, he yet refused to go with 
that party wbicli he believed had a tendency to break up the Government. (See 
his letter to A. Blair, Sparks's Writings of Washington, vol. 11, Appendix xviii.) 
The famous resolutions of the Virginia Legislature of '98 and '99 aroused in his 
mind the strongest fears lest the country should encounter the horrors of anarchy, 
and many of the best and wisest of the land shared his ajjprehensions. It was at 
the earnest solicitation of General AVashington that he determined to offer for a seat 
in the ensuing Legislature, and redeem the promise contained in the extract above. 
Different accounts have been given of his speech in the canvass — the last speech he 
ever made. But a publication made by Mr. Charles Campbell in the Petersburg 
Index of August last settles the question. He publishes the certificates of George 
Woodson Payne, Mr. Henry's brother-in-law, and of the Rev. Clement Read, Colonel 
Clement Carrington, and Robert Morton, his count/ymen, and gentlemen of high 
character and intelligence. Three of these gentlemen heard Mr. Henry's last speech, 
and testify that his effort was to quiet the minds of the people, to persuade them to 
use constitutional means to remedy their grievances, and thus to prevent a dissolu- 
tion of the Union ; and three of them testify that Mr. Henry disapproved of the Alien 
and Sedition laws. 

The terras Federalist and anti-Federalist, first used to designate the parties pro- 
posing and opposing the Constitution, after its adoption changed their meaning. 
Before the post-constitutional parties had become defined, which so powerfully con- 
vulsed the country, Mr. Henry bad retired from public life. He declined a re-election 
to the Legislature in the spring of 1791. Death prevented his sitting in the session 
of 1799, and his last speech was the only political speech he made after those parties 
arose. His letter to Mrs. Aylett in 1796, (Wirt's Henry, p. 400,) declares that at that 
time he had not changed his political opinions; and where have we the evidence of 
his political apostacy at any time? If Mr. Jefferson relies on Mr. Henry's opposition 
to the resolutions of '98 and '99 to establish his apostacy, the answer is at hand. If 
the fact that Mr. Henry, after opposing the adoption of the Constitution, opposed the 
resolutions of '98 and '09, proves his apostacy, the fact that .Mr. Madison and Mr. 



/ 



t 

rson, after supporting the adoption of the Constitution, supported the resolutions 
of '9."| and '99, proves their apostacy. If .Mr. Jefferson intended to fix the apostacy 
in the year 1790, the date of Hamilton's funding sj'Stem, then I answer that the 
Legislature of Virginia did not look upon Mr. Henry as an apostate. In 1794, Mr. 
Henry was elected United States Senator, and in 1796 he was elected Governor for 
the fifth time. 

The charge, then, against Mr. Henry of political apostacy from corrupt motives is, 
I submit, utterly untrue; and his character is untarnished by such ungenerous 
aspersions, from whatever quarter they may come, or with whatever design they may 
be uttered. 

The statement that " General Washington offered Mr. Henry the position of Secre- 
tary of State to flatter him, knowing he would not accept, and was entirely unquali- 
fied for it," if true, is more discreditable to General Washington than to Mr. Henry. 
But it is contradicted hj the statement of General Washington contained in the 
letter offering the position. In that letter he said to Mr. Henry: "It would be 
uncandid not to inform you that this office has been offered to others ; but it is as 
true that it was from a conviction in my own mind that you would not accept it 
(until Tuesday last, in a conversation with General Lee, he dropped sentiments 
which made it less doubtful) that it was not offered first to you. I need scarcely 
add that if this appointment could be made to comport with your inclination, it 
would be as pleasing to me as I believe it would be acceptable to the public. With 
this assurance and with this belief, I make you this offer of it. My first wish is that 
you would accept it." (Sparks's Writings of Washington, vol. 11, p. 81.) 

If General Washington's design was to flatter Mr. Henry, or to get from him his 
political status, surely the answer be received must have been satisfactory. 

What, then, must we conclude from the following extract from a letter from 
General Henry Lee to Mr. Henry, dated the 26th December of the same year, which 
is before me, remembering that General Lee (according to Mr. Jefferson) was acting 
as the common friend of General Washington and Mr. Henry? Says General Lee: 

"The Senate has disagreed to the President's nomination of Mr. Rutledge, and a 
vacancy in that important office has taken place. For your country's sake, for your 
friends' sake, for your family's sake, tell me you will obey a call to it. You know 
my friendship for you ; you know my circumspection ; and I trust you know, too, 
that I should not address you on such a subject without good grounds. Surely, no 
situation better suits an individual than that will you. You continue at home only 
on duty. Change of air and exercise will add to your days. The salary excellent 
and the honor very great. Be explicit in your reply." 

How strange that General Washington, so admirable a judge of men, should offer 
the position of Secretary of State to one who had " no accuracy of idea in his head," 
and. if General Lee is to be believed, should be willing to appoint the same man 
Chief Justice of the United States, though he had been always "too lazy to acquire 
or practice law" ! I can only find a parallel to this conduct in that of the State of 
Virginia towards the same person, which, though abounding in great men at the 
time, imposed upon Mr. Henry her highest offices during a period of more than 
twenty years, and continued to proffer them even after they had been steadfastly 
refused. 

That the violence of party spirit, scrupling at no misrepresentation to injure an 
opponent, did, in some small measure, succeed in alienating from Mr. Henry the 
affections of his countrymen after his voice was hushed in death, may be true ; but 



8 

it could never have been said with truth "that he snnlc to nothing in the estimf 
of his country." The effect of detraction, however, was ephemeral. Mr. Wirt could 
write in 1817: "The storm of 1799, thank Heaven, has passed away, and we again 
enjoy the calm and sunshine of domestic peace. We are able to see with other eyes 
and to feel with far different hearts. * * * The sentiments now so universally 
expressed in relation to Mr. Henry evince that the age of party resentment has passed 
away, and that that of the noblest gratitude has taken its place." 

In conclusion, I cannot but express regret that, of the private and confidential 
communications received by Mr. Wirt, and by him studiously withheld from the 
public eye, this one, containing rumors and opinions to the disadvantage of Mr. 
Henry — rumors refuted by other evidence, and opinions overthrown by a large ma- 
jority of voices, as we are Assured by Mr. Wirt himself — should have appeared in 
print at this late day. (See letter to F. W. Gilmer, Kennedy's Life of Wirt, vol. 2, 
p. 79, which evidently refers to this manuscript.) It cannot but create unpleasant 
feelings even in the minds of the warmest friends of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Wirt refused 
to give publicity to this manuscript, doubtless in accordance with the desire of Mr. 
Jefferson himself, to whose criticism he submitted his Life of Patrick Henry in man- 
uscript, and by Avhose advice he published it. (See letters of Jefferson and Wirt, 
Kennedy's Life of Wirt, vol. 1, pp. 407—412.) 

WM. WIRT HENRY. 



